March 18, 2014
ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL NORRIS
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
1132 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96831
RE: Request for Reconsideration of Dismissal of ODC 14-019-9162;
Leonard G. Horowitz, Complainant v. Paul J. Sulla, Jr, or in the Alternative,
Leave to File a New Complaint
Dear Acting Chief Disciplinary Counsel Norris:
Yesterday afternoon, after I mailed to you my packet of New Evidence of Mr. Sulla, Jr.’s forgeries of six different parties, I learned that you and your Reviewing Board Member dismiss the Complaint based, purportedly, on lacking “clear and convincing evidence.”
The new evidence I mailed you proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Sulla, Jr. committed, inter alia, securities fraud by forging securities instruments filed with the State of Hawaii, corroborating several claims in my Complaint.
Consequently, I am hereby requesting clarification pursuant to your action under HRSC Rule 16(b)(iii) that states: “Upon the conclusion of an Investigation, Counsel shall forward or present the following to a Reviewing Board Member: . . . (iii) Counsel's recommendation as to the disposition of the matter by any of the following based on clear and convincing evidence: • Dismiss the matter; • Dismiss with a letter of caution, with or without violation; • Impose a private Informal Admonition; or • Institute a Formal Disciplinary Proceeding.”
Your Notice of dismissal stated lacking “clear and convincing evidence” of what? You did not providing a “clear and convincing” explanation as to why and how you determined anything. By what measure did you evaluate the evidence submitted? Please inform me regarding these two most substantive matters.
To my knowledge, the Complaint included multiple material exhibits supporting multiple specified unlawful actions by the Respondant. Therefore, the basis of the ODC dismissal for lacking “clear and convincing evidence” is entirely unclear, and I request in good faith, and for the legal record being compiled for federal case 13-00500 HG-BMK, in which the State is a defendant, a more detailed provision of information in keeping with the spirit and intent of HRS § 92-3 (1993), the Sunshine Act.
In addition, I request written clarification(s) regarding what “clear and convincing evidence” the Respondent provided the Counsel that adequately proved that he did not conspire with Mr. Hester to: a) file the malicious prosecution ejectment action, Civ. No. 3RC-11-1-662; b)contemporaneously exercised (with Mr. Hester as “Borrower”) a $50,000.00 mortgage note thatis illegally secured by my (and my ministry’s) property, with himself, attorney Sulla, Jr., as “Lender;” c) enter under false pretenses and false filing(s) with the Freitas Court as Hester’s counsel, and d) litigate also in Civ. No 05-1-0196, as a concealed surety, in violation of RCCH 26(b).
The way HRSC Rule 16(b)(iii) reads, Counsel can dismiss a matter based on “clear and convincing evidence.” It does not state that Counsel can dismiss a matter for lacking “clear and convincing evidence” in cases wherein substantial factual evidence is presented, but where Counsel requires further information during the investigation from the Complainant to glean compelling “clear and convincing evidence.”
It is unclear what evidence was controvertedby attorney Sulla, Jr. in his response(s). Your Notice implies no “clear and convincing evidence” was obtained from either party; and I am fully aware of all of Mr. Sulla’s defenses and counterclaims, none of which hold any weight given the chain of records provided and additionally available to you to accommodate an “inquiry reasonable.”
The Complaint included the following statements of fact that the Counsel has, by your Notice, claimed insufficiently supported or refuted by “clear and convincing evidence:”
Attorney Sulla has concealed and repeatedly certified false financialinstruments with the State and the courts.
While acting as an attorney, Mr. Sulla has recklessly argued whencaught in his pattern of forming and agenting sham religious trusts characterized by United States Tax Court attorneys as "vertical abusive trust beneficiary schemes" to defraud clients, the judiciary, third parties, and tax collectors . . . .
Consequently, I am compelled by your determination to additionally gain your written clarification that:
1)the Assignment of Mortgage dated May 15, 2009, and filed by Mr. Sulla, Jr. on behalf of the corporate shell “Gospel of Believers” sham “church” with the Bureau of Conveyances on Sept. 8, 2009, that contained the false Warranty and Representation “that there are no other holders of said Mortgage or any interest therein, . . . “ (after I paid more than $600K on that Mortgage, including its final balloon payment, and defended said property against fraudulent foreclosure for more than four years, including winning the foreclosure denied ruling in Civ. No. 05-1-0196, a ruling violated by Mr. Sulla’s non-judicial foreclosure auction in contempt of that decision, is insufficient “clear and convincing evidence.” It is my contention that any “reasonable person” would view this evidence of attempted robbery under color of law by reason of false filings with the State in violation of H.R.S. §425E-208, (i.e., multiple breaches of ethics), clearly and convincingly indicting.
2)you are in receipt of the New Evidence I mailed you on March 17, 2014, including irrefutable material proof that Mr. Sulla’s purported “church” client NEVER EXISTED when and where Mr. Sulla falsely certified it to be, according to the man who owned that strictly residential address (of 811 Malama Street in Pahoa, HI), as declared in his “Letter to Jason Hester” filed recently in the U.S. District Court Case, Civ. No. 13-00500 HG-BMK;
3)you are in receipt of the New “clear and convincing” Evidence of multiple acts of forgery by attorney Sulla, Jr. , forging the signatures of six different people for court pleadings or securities filings with the State; and
4)you are in receipt of the “clear and convincing” Declaration of Beth Chrisman, forensic document and handwriting expert, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Sulla filed a “bad faith” affidavit in Civ. No. 12-1-0417, falsely claiming process server Robert Dukat signed three ejectment warrants (on Sept. 20, 2013) as “R DUM,” when in fact, Sulla, Jr. forged Dukat’s “R DUM” signature(s) to terrorize our residential community to steal my property under color of law.
I believe that it is best, under the aforementioned circumstances requiring clarifications, in light of the New Evidence submitted, and ongoing litigation with the State defendant, and by HRSC Rule2.6 (b)(8), to request that you assist me in preparing revisions to the Complaint, or a new Complaint, along with information that you require to be “clearly and convincingly” persuaded to discipline Mr. Sulla, Jr, for his aforementioned misconduct.
I look forward to hearing from you, and working with you, to resolve this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H., D.N.M.(hon.); D.M.M. (hon.)
ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL NORRIS and
ATTORNEY WILLIAM S. HARTFORD
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
1132 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96831
DR. LEONARD G. HOROWITZ
P. O. Box 75104
Honolulu, HI 96836
310-877-3002
Attorney General David Louie, et. al.
Department of the Attorney General
425 Queen Street.
Honolulu, HI 96813
1